CEX.IO -2

Monday, November 18, 2013

Traffic laws, traffic control devices, police patrols, speed traps, radar, photo-radar and all the extortion that comes with those things do nothing to improve public safety according to yet another study.

Previous studies in the Netherlands have shown that about 70% of street signs are ignored. This is likely due to the fact that there are so many signs that motorists would be neglecting to pay attention to the road and other cars if they cared to take the time to read all of the signs.

Several cities throughout Europe have adopted the concept of "Shared Space" which has greatly reduced traffic accidents and fatalities. The idea is that without rules, drivers are forced to pay more attention to the other cars on the road. The changes have increased the use of eye contact, nods, and courteous interaction between drivers. They are looking out for themselves, but also for others. Rather than the reliance on rules and regulations, more conscious use of signals, paying attention to one's surroundings, and caution have improved traffic safety dramatically... To a surprising degree.

Psychologists have found that the more traffic regulations there are, the more drivers feel the need to rebel either consciously or unconsciously.

On those days when you can't seem to hit one single green light and you're running late. You find lights turning red for no reason - no cars or pedestrians coming from either cross street. Eventually people push the limits, speeding through

yellow lights, rolling through stop signs, etc.

People are more worried about getting a ticket than they are about avoiding collisions with other vehicles on the road. When the authoritarian state treats its citizen motorists like children, the natural tendency is to try to see what we can get away with and rebel. This is human nature.

Eliminating the rules, forces motorists to take responsibility for their own actions, to avoid the other motorists and not worry so much about police, cameras, radar equipment, and other nonsense. It empowers people by treating them as adults which promotes more responsible behavior.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

what is the Market? Put simply, the market is you and me. It is all of us going about our business - doing what we do every day. Whether it is going to work, buying groceries, talking on the phone, water-skiing, or just watching the TV. Virtually every activity one can think of is a market activity.

When we are working, we are not only involved in the process of making a product or performing a service, but we are actively engaged in selling our time on the labor market to an interested buyer. When we are using a telephone, we are buying air time at an agreed-upon price.

Price is the monetary amount at which a transaction takes place. So, how are prices determined? Well, in a free market price is determined to be the point at which the buyer and seller agree to make a transaction. This is simply because if the price is too high, the buyer will not buy and if the price is too low, the seller will not sell. This concept can be applied on an aggregate scale which often determines the “going price” of a product or service. Competition between businesses that offer the same or similar products or services works to keep prices low and quality high, as they all try to provide the best value to the consumer for their hard-earned dollar in order to win the sale. In this struggle to win the sale over a competitor, businesses work to give their customers the most value for the least amount of money. Since consumers have a limited supply of money, they therefore put pressure on these competing businesses to give them the most value in exchange for their money.

Wages work the same way. After all a wage is nothing more than the price on the sale

of labor. This price is set where employer (the buyer) and the employee (the seller) agree.

Supply and Demand also affect pricing. With a given supply, price will increase or decrease in a direct relationship with demand. Price is inversely related to supply. With a given demand, price will decrease as supply increases and vice-versa.

These mechanisms which are entirely voluntary, comprise a major set of forces that automatically correct any problems that may arise in the market. For example if a shortage in materials makes it more difficult to produce a product, this shortage will automatically drive the input costs of producing the product up which will result in an increased price to the buyer. The increase in price to the buyer will reduce the demand for the product, which will in-turn put downward pressure on the price. The slowdown in sales will decrease the amount of materials needed, thus reducing the shortage.

Most products have an elasticity of demand, meaning that the demand is affected by price. Specifically, Elasticity of Demand refers to the rate of change in demand with respect to the change in price. So, if the price of an item were to increase, the demand would taper off. The reduced demand would then put downward pressure on the price by reducing the amount of product demanded. The amount of elasticity in the demand of the product will determine the speed of the correction. In other words the elasticity of demand is the amount of slope in the demand curve at a given price or the first derivative of the quantity demanded with respect to price.

The market has great power to correct negative outcomes, though this is generally in the long run. However, for some people the problems that spring up in the market are not resolved quickly enough and want a short run solution. These problems are referred to as “market failures”. To these people, the solution to correct a market failure is through government intervention. A classic example of a market failure is pollution or environmental destruction, typically associated with monopolized utilities or industrial production. Generally speaking, the market will resolve “failures” like this assuming that there is no asymmetry in information. Assymetry in information is when the consumer is unaware of such a problem. When the consumers are made aware of market failures, they generally respond in a way that will offer a correction. For example, suppose you are offered several different sources from which you could buy a certain widget. You discover that though the products made by the different sources are similar in design, one of them is produced by a company that is polluting a river in the process. An informed market will choose to buy from the competitor

and this will put pressure on the offending company to improve its processes in order to compete. This could take a lot of time, especially because of the dissemination of information that is required. This problem is more-easily overcome thanks to the internet and social media however. But because of the time lag required for the market to respond to these sorts of issues, and the relative urgency in the need to correct these problems, many people advocate the government intervention into the market. Government intervention can take place in several ways - (e.g. in the form of environmental regulations, price controls, taxes, tax breaks/incentives, penalties, etc).

A major problem with regulatory agencies is that they are subject to corruption by the political process, bribery, and collusion. We are currently seeing this in the battle over Genetically Modified foods (GMOS), particularly with Monsanto. Monsanto is the manufacturer of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals. Recently, they entered the food industry and have very quickly become the world leader in producing genetically modified produce. Through gene splicing of corn, soy, tomato, and other plant DNA with DNA from animal and e.coli bacteria, they have managed to produce crops that are resistant to higher doses of their herbicide (RoundUp). The result is not only the increased use of these poisonous chemicals in the American food supply, but increased pollution from run-off and aerial spraying. What’s more is that many studies are showing that these modified foods may be unsafe for human consumption as reports indicate increased rates of cancer in laboratory animals as wells as internal bleeding and allergic response in animals given GMO foods. Currently, over 90% of the U.S. corn, soy, cotton, and canola supplies are genetically modified. Despite the government’s heavy regulation of the agriculture and food industries, these highly questionable and suspect products have been allowed to dominate, capturing near monopolistic levels of market share. How is this possible? Well, it has happened because of collusion between Monsanto and the Federal Government. Currently, Monsanto Attorney Michael Taylor serves as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods, where he oversees the FDA’s food safety policies. Over the past 2 decades, Michael Taylor has worked in a revolving-door fashion going back and forth between jobs at Monsanto, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the FDA.

The FDA was created as a market intervention in order to a ensure a safe food supply for the consumers. Since it is impractical to personally inspect food processors to ensure that they follow good practices and safe food handling guidelines, many people felt that government oversight would give them a certain peace of mind. The FDA established food safety standards and worked to enforce them. This power which has been placed in the hands of politicians whose primary interest is collecting money and support for re-election is largely a very costly failure.

On the other hand, thanks to technology, we have much better means of regulating food suppliers and producers through free-market methods. Zagat’s, Facebook, Foursquare, and Yelp have probably done more to ensure public food safety than the FDA ever has. Private certification organizations both profit and non-profit abound. If you want food that is organic, kosher, glatt kosher, halal, vegetarian, vegan, non-GMO, cruelty-free, locally-produced, fair-trade, environmentally-friendly, free-range, cage-free, or grass-fed, there are literally thousands of free-market providers that offer solutions to fill these needs, all without the need for government intervention into the market.

What we are seeing now is that government intervention into the market is decreasing food safety rather than improving it. Government regulators now protect political contributors like Monsanto from the market forces, by crafting labeling laws that increase and prolong asymmetry of information. In other words, labeling laws are written to prevent the consumer from finding out that they products they consume contain GMOs and increased levels of herbicides and pesticides.

Furthermore, they have been working to corrupt private standards already put in place by private certifiers. We have seen this with the USDA’s foray into organic certification. The USDA’s Certified Organic label has become the biggest organic certification in the market, however they also have the weakest standards. This is by design, because the largest food producers have had the most difficulty in offering products that qualify as organic, and the number of organic consumers has been rising steadily. This has created a resurgence of smaller growers, food producers, and distributors who pose a threat to these larger conglomerates. The large conglomerates like Con-Agra, ADM, Kraft, Dole, PepsiCo, Nestlé, and General Mills have many millions of dollars that they can and do contribute to political allies. This enables them to buy regulatory favors for themselves and burdens for their competitors. The smaller producers suffer under the regulatory burdens, and eventually get bought out by the larger firms (e.g Naked Juice is now owned by PepsiCo, Kashi is now owned by Kelloggs, etc).

We are currently seeing a political war over the healthcare Industry. Proponents of government intervention via the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “ObamaCare”), cite current inefficiencies and inequities in the healthcare system. They claim that the government will “streamline” the system and reduce inefficiency. They also claim that it will correct inequity by providing health insurance coverage to people who did not qualify previously (due to lack of financial ability or pre-existing medical conditions). One of these two arguments has merit - that is to say that it will correct the inequity. The argument that market intervention will create efficiency is false.

Opponents of the ACA cite that the current problems with the healthcare industry stem from the government’s previous market interventions, heavy regulation, and excessive litigation. These arguments are very strong, but are more difficult to argue to the public at large who still see the government as their guardians and protectors.

The effects of market interventions is always to create inefficiencies. The root cause of this is that the voluntary nature of the relationship between buyer and seller is altered. The producer/seller incurs additional cost inputs which are largely outside of their control and these either get passed down to the buyer. Price controls are an especially destructive form of market intervention. Often, a large segment of the population will view the market price of a product or service as being too expensive, so they petition their representatives in government to intervene by enforcing a price ceiling on a product. The politicians use these segments of society to rile up public support and buy votes.

The effect of a price ceiling if it were to placed below the equilibrium price, is to create a shortage in the product will be produced. Since the seller is statutorily prohibited from raising the price in order to reach the equilibrium point, there is no ability to supply enough to meet the artificially-increased demand. A price ceiling that is above the market price will generally have no effect on the market.

Likewise, with a price floor that is above the equilibrium price, a surplus in the product is created. This is because suppliers will want to supply more at the higher price, but there will not be enough buyers at that price. We see this with minimum wage laws. The minimum wage is basically a price floor on the sale of labor. When a minimum wage is placed above the market price, more people will enter the market wishing to sell their labor. However, the number of buyers wishing to pay that wage or the labor is reduced, creating a surplus of workers which is known as “unemployment”. For this reason, generally the minimum wage is set below the market wage so as to have little to no effect (but still allow politicians to buy votes because the public will perceive the increase the minimum wage as helping the poor).

In conclusion, the best solutions to virtually any problem that may arise in the free market are based in the continuation or expansion of free-market principles. Problems that come from an uninformed consumer base is to increase the flow of accurate information to the consumer. The nearly free-market exists on the internet allows the rapid dissemination of information to the consumer which is their best protection. The internet provides the only sources for information about Monsanto that offer consumer protection, while the government works to obfuscate that information. The same is true for the aforementioned organic industry. The growth in organic foods which is healthier, safer, more environmentally friendly and sustainable has occurred outside of and in spite of government regulation and barriers to entry in the food industry.

The perceived disadvantage of this approach is that it will take too long to correct a problem because the information must be disseminated and spread before it will correct itself. However this is false because in order for government intervention to work, that information must still be disseminated and spread before the government will offer a correction. I propose that the free-market actually offers more effective corrective solutions in a more timely manner than intervention does in today’s market.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts... Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. … The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." ~ George Orwell

When most Americans think of the word slavery, they think of the system of indentured servitude and forced labor that existed prior to the Civil War. After all that is what we were all taught in school right?

Images of black men getting flogged and whipped by their masters for not picking enough cotton, while black women serve as maids and cooks in the house are common among us.

Or perhaps other images of Hebrew slaves making mud bricks in the hot sun while their Egyptian taskmasters walk around whipping workers randomly without provocation.

Thank God slavery is gone! Right?

Slavery today is alive and well. It's a thriving enterprise - and I'm not talking about some third world countries in far off lands. I'm talking about the slavery that we live under currently in the United States of America.

There have been many books that present the data that is in this video. I've personally checked into this, I've read through the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 USC), and what she says in accurate. But as with all things, do your due diligence and check it out for yourself.

Friday, September 27, 2013

Robin Hood is known for "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor". There are many versions to the story, and the origins of the tale are obscured in history. However, in several of the versions, including Disney's adaptation, it is the oppressive and thieving government who Robin Hood steals from so that he can return the money to the rightful owners, which are the people at large.

In Keene, New Hampshire the Spirit of Robin Hood lives on and has begun to spread. A group of Voluntaryists, Libertarians, Anarchists, and generally friendly people have been walking the city streets spreading good cheer and having fun at the same time by feeding parking meters that are about to expire, thus depriving the government of an opportunity to rob/extort money from the good people of Keene. Take a minute to watch their excellent introductory video. It's well worth watching.

Now some of you may think that they are guilty of committing a crime- that the city is somehow entitled to collect a fine from those parking violators. For those people, the Robin Hood of Keene make an excellent point. They state that the people and the merchants pay taxes for the roads and the parking areas, the meters for those parking areas, and the salaries of the meter maids who then collect more money for parking and still even more from the parking violators. When is it enough?

If what these people are doing is a crime, then I'd like to present this video, which was John Hickenlooper's campaign ad from 2003, when he was running for Mayor of Denver.

Please take another 30 seconds to watch this.

Wait! What??!? Was that a Mayoral candidate "Robin Hooding" the people of Denver? Why, yes it was! He even did it right in front of a Meter Maid (Yes! I know it was a dude. That doesn't make him a man).

John Hickenlooper's ad was so popular, that he won the mayor's seat by a landslide. Many media outlets said it was due to the popularity of this ad alone that won him the seat.

One of the first things Hickenlooper did as Mayor was to tear out the parking meters in the Cherry Creek Shopping District...

...and replace them with more modern ones that take credit cards.

But, he did make the parking free on Sundays (when many of the shops were closed). Since the newer machines took credit cards, many people didn't notice the increase in meter fees since it is a lot more convenient to use a bank card then it is to carry around an ashtray full of quarters in your car or run into the nearest shop to get change for the meter.

According to the Denver Post, Hickenlooper's parking meter enforcement shot up to record levels.

That's right, the "Robin Hood of Denver" was really Sheriff Nottingham in disguise!

It's true! In fact in another one of his popular mayoral campaign ads, you see him originally in his Sheriff of Nottingham costume, which he trades in for trying on all kinds of different disguises, trying to find the one that will make him look more "authentic" as a mayor that the people will embrace.

With frauds like this, now serving as governor of the state of Colorado, it is time for the REAL Robin Hoods to step up and start returning back to the people everything he and people like him have stolen.

It is time for a new chapter of the Robin Hoods to get out there and start patrolling the parking meters of the Denver Metro area. Anyone can be a Robin Hood. If you see an expired meter or one that is about to expire, just drop in a quarter. Of course, the new meters that Hickenlooper put in at the Cherry Creek Shopping District, require you to take the printout of the receipt and place it on your dash, so this won't unless they left a window rolled down. You might want to just leave the receipt under the wiper blade for them. But there still are plenty of Old-School meters all around the city elsewhere.

Do your neighbor a favor, while showing the government that increasing enforcement of parking meters is not going to make up for their reckless spending and budget gaps. Chances are you could use the good Karma.

For more information on Robin Hood of Keene, check out their website and Facebook page and give them a 'Like'.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Speed limits are set by politicians not engineers. Engineers who design the highways, do testing, and determine the best speed limits to maximize safety submit SUGGESTIONS to politicians who then figure out the best speeds to maximize revenue and make those speed limits law.

Once again, we see that government is NOT concerned with your safety, the safety of the public, logic, or reason. They are only concerned with maximizing the amount of money they can steal from you through extortion and increasing their power.

This is an extremely good video on the subject and quite entertaining also. I highly suggest that everyone take the time to watch it.

Texas Railroad Commissioner Barry Smitherman -- a candidate for Attorney General -- says his state is actively preparing to operate as an independent nation if the United States "falls apart," The Blaze reported Saturday.

“Generally speaking, we have made great progress in becoming an independent nation, an ‘island nation’ if you will, and I think we want to continue down that path so that if the rest of the country falls apart, Texas can operate as a stand-alone entity with energy, food, water and roads as if we were a closed-loop system,” he told WND.

Smitherman also said Texas is “uniquely situated because we have energy resources, fossil and otherwise, and our own independent electrical grid.”

“This was one of my goals at the Utility Commission and it is one my goals currently as chairman of the Railroad Commission,” he added. “That’s why I stress so vehemently oil and gas production, permitting turnaround times, and everything that enables the industry to produce as much as it can, as quickly as it can.”

He also told WND that Texas has “been very strong leading in the charge against the Obama administration.”

WND's John Griffing said a lot of officials address these kind of issues, but not the same way Smitherman does.

“One of the things I’ve focused on in the last 10 years of my public sector life is preparing Texas to be a prosperous and safe place to work, regardless of what happens outside our borders,” he said.

While Smitherman is being called a secessionist by liberals and detractors, it is important to note that he never used the word in the WND interview, nor does he appear to advocate secession as a matter of state policy -- only as one possibility in the event of an apocalyptic national catastrophe.

An article at Think Progress called WND a "right-wing birther hub" and reminded readers of the last time Texas seceded from the Union. Predictably, liberals crawled out of the woodwork to express their hatred of Texas and all things conservative.

"The thought of the U.S. without Texas is truly exhilarating," one person said.

"Good. If Texas secedes, the nation will be better and Texas can enjoy its sand and heat until the next hurricane hits the gulf, or the next firestorm, or the next tornado -- no help will be available. No federal money going to the state in subsidies. And best of all, we would be spared the likes of all-hat, no-cattle politicians like Perry, Cruz, Gohnmert, Paul, et.al," another person added.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Every Veterans Day, Memorial Day, Pearl Harbor Day, as well as every September 11th and every other occasion, we are reminded to always give thanks to the men and women in uniform who fought and died in order to secure our freedom. The government spends millions of dollars (of your money) to build memorials and advertise this message of soldiers providing for and securing your freedom.

Yet, at the same time we see that our government is not very concerned at all with our freedom. The United States holds the largest prison population on earth - by a long shot. Despite having only 5% of the world's population, 25% of all the world's prisoners are in the United States. Nearly 200,000 pages of federal laws dictate our behavior, and our jurisprudence operates under the premise that "ignorance is no excuse" for violating any of these laws. Each January 1st, every American is subjected to over 40,000 new laws - that's a lot to try to keep track of. Couple this with the massive NSA spying programs, warrant-less searches and seizures, DEA spying programs, and militarization of our police and you see that liberty is not anywhere on the government's agenda.

Every aspect of our lives is regulated and governed by bureaucrats, legislators, and an alphabet soup of government agencies at local, county, state, and federal levels.

So why does the government keep spending money telling us about how our military secures and defends our freedom?

The military operates under the command of the same people who heap these burdensome laws that continue to enslave us further and further. The reason the government tells us that the military gives us freedom is because THEY are the military. They control the military - the military works for the politicians. Now, this is where many people will get upset and beg to disagree, stating that the military works to uphold the Constitution, etc. However, the Constitution states that the military operates under the civil power and that the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Alright, well the "civil power".. that's the People right? Yes, the People through their representatives in Congress. Yep, the politicians!

Few would argue that the government gives us freedom. Yet at the same time, they will argue that the soldiers fought and died for our freedom. These two statements are contradictory. If we owe our freedom to our soldiers, then we owe that same freedom to the politicians who command the soldiers.

On July 4, 1776, the Colonial Congress sent a letter to King George III declaring their independence from Britain. King George sent his armies against his own people to attempt to bring them back into subjugation to his crown. The Colonialists ended up fighting against their soldiers in order to secure their freedom. Freedom did not come from soldiers. It came from farmers, merchants, blacksmiths, brewers, and tradesmen. The soldier was their to take away the freedom of the people, not to give it to them.

Throughout history, the soldier's role has always been to deprive people of freedom. It is only through the government's use of Newspeak that the idea of a soldier providing the people with Liberty could ever remotely be considered.

Reading this, I'm sure most readers will be appalled and angry with my words. If you are one of these, ask yourself if your emotional reaction is due to logic and reason? Or is it due to the fact that this goes against everything you have been conditioned to believe?

The founding fathers spoke of a standing army as the biggest affront to liberty (aside from a central bank). Who is right? The Ad Council and Veteran's organizations who venerate our standing army or the founders who warned us against it?

Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.

A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme 'approved by Washington' is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.

Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

Scroll down for video

War games: An explosion in the Syrian city of Homs last month. It has been now been suggested that the U.S. backed the use of chemical weapons to spur international military intervention

According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

It reads: 'Phil... We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.

'We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.

'They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

'Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

'Kind regards, David.'

Britam Defence had not yet returned a request for comment to MailOnline.

Leaked: The email was allegedly sent from a top official at a British defense contractor regarding a 'Washington approved' chemical attack in Syria which could be blamed on Assad's regime

The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumés and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.

Dave Goulding's Linkedin profile lists him as Business Development Director at Britam Defence Ltd in Security and Investigations. A business networking profile for Phil Doughty lists him as Chief Operationg Officer for Britam, United Arab Emirates, Security and Investigations.

The U.S. State Department had not returned a request for comment on the alleged emails to MailOnline today at time of publication.

However the use of chemical warfare was raised at a press briefing in D.C. on January 28.

A spokesman said that the U.S. joined the international community in 'setting common redlines about the consequences of using chemical weapons'.

Countless losses: Families attempt to identify the bodies of Syrian fighters shot and dumped in a river in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo today

Devastation: People gather at a site hit by what activists said was missiles fired by a Syrian Air Force fighter jet from forces loyal to Assad, at the souk of Azaz, north of Aleppo on January 13

A leaked U.S. government cable revealed that the Syrian army more than likely had used chemical weapons during an attack in the city of Homs in December.

The document, revealed in The Cable, revealed the findings of an investigation by Scott Frederic Kilner, the U.S. consul general in Istanbul, into accusations that the Syrian army used chemical weapons in the December 23 attack.

An Obama administration official who had access to the document was reported as saying: 'We can't definitely say 100 per cent, but Syrian contacts made a compelling case that Agent 15 was used in Homs on Dec. 23.'

Mr Kilner's investigation included interviews with civilians, doctors, and rebels present during the attack, as well as the former general and head of the Syrian WMD program, Mustafa al-Sheikh.

Dr. Nashwan Abu Abdo, a neurologist in Homs, is certain chemical weapons were used. He told The Cable: 'It was a chemical weapon, we are sure of that, because tear gas can't cause the death of people.'

Threats: Barack Obama said during a speech last month that if Syria used chemical weapons against its own people it would be 'totally unacceptable'

Tyrant: Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, pictured with his wife Asma, is facing increasing international pressure over his brutal massacre of his own people

Eye witness accounts from the investigation revealed that a tank launched chemical weapons and caused people exposed to them to suffer nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, delirium, seizures, and respiratory distress.

The symptoms suggest that the weaponized compound Agent-15 was responsible. Syria denied using chemical weapons and said it would never use them against citizens.

Speaking to Pentagon reporters at the time, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said his biggest concern was how the U.S. and allies would secure the chemical and biological weapons sites scattered across Syria and ensure the components don't end up in the wrong hands if the regime falls, particularly under violent conditions.

Government forces and rebels in Syria have both been accused by human rights groups of carrying out brutal warfare in the 22-month-old conflict, which has claimed more than 60,000 lives.